Open Access: Europe's Plan A-R Explained

A publisher mansplains 'Titanium OA'
(photo: Rawpixel via Unsplash)

There was much excitement in Brussels this week with the publication of 'Plan S', the European Commission's plan to make all scholarly publications resulting from public research funding open access from 1 January 2020.

But the big question is: what happened to Plans A-R? Robert-Jan Smits, Senior Advisor on Open Access within the European Political Strategy Centre, spoke exclusively to Fundermentals.

'It was a long and difficult process,' suggests, Smits, 'and it took us many months and an awful lot of coffee.'

Smits set out the process that they had been through to reach Plan S, and the 18 previous plans that got them there.

OA: Challenging the Status Quo

In some ways open access doesn’t do itself any favours. It should be a no-brainer: an idealistic movement to unshackle knowledge from the citadels that imprison it, making it free to all those who want to learn. A people’s movement to challenge power. It’s Robin Hood and the Peasants’ Revolt. It’s David and Goliath. It’s the Levellers and the Chartists. It’s the French, American and Russian Revolutions rolled into one. But without the oppression and the terror.

And yet. And yet it’s a hard movement to really love. Possibly it’s all those acronyms, arcane differentiation and complex licensing options.

‘What do we want?’

‘CC-BY! Or possibly CC-BY-SA. Okay, maybe CC-BY-NA at the very, very least.’

‘When do we want it?’

‘Wait! I haven’t finished. I really think we should push for Green OA, and use the CASRAI principles for the underlying data management. Oh, and using ORCIDs, of course. But that’s a given, right?’

‘Okay. Right. When do we want it?’

‘Now I’m assuming no embargo, yes? And are we going OA from date of publication or acceptance?’

Yes, it would be tough to spray paint that on a banner to wave at the barricades. At times it feels like a revolution for bureaucrats.

Peer Review and the Xerox Machine

Martha had finally found
a use for the pasta maker
they'd been given for
their wedding

Last year I wrote a column in response to a letter from a group of eminent academics bemoaning the current state of peer review. “Support for research that might lead to major new scientific discoveries is virtually forbidden nowadays,” the letter claimed, “and science is in serious danger of stagnating.”

I explored the problems of the system and what could be done to fix it. I looked forward but didn’t think to look back. I’d assumed, like many others, that the current system had always been so. I hadn’t realised that the first use of the term peer review was in 1969.

Fundermental Top 10 of 2014

Last year I compiled a list of the top ten posts on Fundermentals, based on page views. As we inch towards Christmas, and before the deluge of the REF, I reckon it's time to do the same for 2014.

In the Salon

In June Research Professional reported that Prof Adam Tickell,  successor to Dame Janet Finch, will be holding a series of salons to discuss Open Access.

Open Access salons! What a great idea.

A hairdressing salon. A row of women sit under hard hat dryers along the back wall, flicking through out of date copies of Grazia magazine. At the front a stylist fusses around a client in front of a large mirror.The bell on the door tinkles as a woman enters. Everyone turns to look at her.

STYLIST: Can I help you, love?
WOMAN (nervously): Yes, I was wanting a quick trim..?
STYLIST: Open Access, is it?
WOMAN: Pardon?
STYLIST: Do you want your haircut to be Open Access?
WOMAN: I don't really understand...
STYLIST: Do you want your hair to be freely viewed by members of the public? Or do you want to wear this over your head?

She holds up a paper bag. 

Open Access in Public Libraries: a Report from the Frontline

It was announced yesterday that academic papers would be made freely accessible at local libraries. Now read on.

A small local library. In the corner a stressed young mother is trying to interest her child in a brightly coloured book about a duck. The librarian is stamping returned books and tutting occasionally. 
An elderly woman enters with a pull along shopping trolley and a handful of academic papers. She approaches the desk. The librarian looks up.

LIBRARIAN: Yes? Can I help you?
WOMAN: I want to complain.
LIBRARIAN (defensively): Oh?
WOMAN: Yes. I came in last week to get the latest Mills & Boon. I was really looking forward to it. Defence of Her Realm it was called. I like a good romance.
LIBRARIAN: And?
WOMAN: Well you didn't have it in. It was already on loan, and there was a three year waiting list.
LIBRARIAN: Well they are popular, the Mills & Boons.
WOMAN: That's as may be. Anyway, you suggested I try these instead. (She hoists up the pile of academic papers, and they slam down on the counter. The mother turns in alarm and her child starts crying).
LIBRARIAN: It's always good to broaden your horizons. Did you not enjoy them?
WOMAN (picks up the first paper and reads the title): 'Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2 -ΔΔCT method'? What do you think?
LIBRARIAN: That's one of our most popular titles! It's been cited 27,524 times! How can you say you didn't like it?
WOMAN (sniffily): Well it's not exactly Barbara Cartland is it? And this: 'Wireless Sensor Networks: a Survey'. I hoped for great things from this, what with it mentioning a 'sensor'. I thought there might a bit of sensuousness. Maybe with a robot. I like a bit of filth. But look! It's all about the convergence of micro-electro-mechanical systems technology, wireless communications and digital electronics!
LIBRARIAN: Very important in the modern world.
WOMAN: I don't care about the modern world! What I want is something set in the Regency period. Preferably between a beautiful but poor farm girl and a passing duke who becomes infatuated with her.
LIBRARIAN (picks up 'gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory' and flicks through it): Hmm. I can see that these might not be what you're looking for, then. (To herself) Maybe this Open Access initiative isn't all it's cracked up to be. Maybe these should be - I don't know - freely accessible in a university library, or somewhere...
WOMAN: So what are you going to do about it, young lady? Don't you have any Catherine Cooksons?
LIBRARIAN: Look! Why don't you give these highly cited, cutting edge papers another go?
WOMAN (sucking her teeth): Cutting edge paper? Don't like the sound of that...I had a paper cut once. No....
LIBRARIAN: Oh, okay then. Here, you can borrow the Tilly Trotter Trilogy. Again.
WOMAN (beaming): Ooo, I do like a good Catherine Cookson. (She picks up the books and shuffles out. The Librarian sighs and carries on stamping books. The mother approaches the desk).
MOTHER: Excuse me?
LIBRARIAN: Yes?
MOTHER: Those academic papers? Can anyone borrow them?
LIBRARIAN (perking up): Yes! Isn't it wonderful? This world of knowledge, at the very forefront of discovery! And available to anyone!
MOTHER: Oh, that's great. Can I borrow these? (she picks up the whole pile).
LIBRARIAN: Of course! (She stamps the papers and hands them over). I must admit I'm surprised that you have time to study, what with a young child. I do admire you!
MOTHER: Oh, it's not for me! See, my child has trouble sleeping and I think if I read these aloud he'll be out like a light! Hugo, do come and listen to this: 'Microenvironments appear important in stem cell lineage specification but can be difficult to adequately characterize or control with soft tissues. Naive mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are shown here to specify lineage and commit to phenotypes with extreme sensitivity to tissue-level elasticity. Soft matrices that mimic brain are neurogenic, stiffer matrices that mimic muscle are myogenic...'
CHILD: zzzz
MOTHER (whispering): Yes, Open Access is a wonderful thing! Thank you!
The Librarian tuts. 

Fundermental Top 10 of 2013

It's that time of year, isn't it? Never mind peace on Earth and goodwill to all: give us your lists! What have you been watching? What have you been reading? Where have you gone? What have you eaten?

So, in the spirit of the season, here are the ten most read posts on the blog this year. It's like a mix tape of the best bits, and a reminder of what we've all been thinking about this year.

1. Notes from OA Forum (January). I can't believe it's been almost a year since we held this event.

   

   No. 1: OA Forum

   2013 is the year that Open Access became mainstream, when we consulted on and drafted an OA Policy. This was part of the process, and maybe its popularity came from many people being in the same boat, trying to work out exactly what they were going to do about OA.
2. Thinking Imaginatively about Impact (May). Although OA has dominated people's minds (after the REF, natch), Impact continues to have a hold. Kevin Parker of KKI

   

   No. 2: Impact

   Associates came and spoke about how to be creative with interpreting impact. Inspiring.
3. EPSRC Bingo (October). Whilst Fundermentals is meant to inform with notes on meetings such as those on OA and Impact above, it's also meant to be a way of sharing frustrations - hopefully with a bit of humour. This came from reading one policy document too many.
4. Essential Elements of a Good Application (November). A write up of a Grants Factory event this year. We brought together four academics who have had experience of the BBSRC, ESRC, AHRC and EPSRC, and it was a really useful panel session. 

   

   No. 4: Essential Elements

5. AHRC: View from the Committee Room (February). I've taken part in a couple of AHRC training events this year, to talk about what we do at Kent with internal peer review. This post was writing up the hints and tips of one of the other speakers, Prof Roberta Mock of Plymouth University.
6. H2020: Where We're at (July). As well as the growth of OA, we've all been keeping a weather eye on the development of the new European funding programme, Horizon 2020. This was an overview of the developments mid-year, after coming

   

   No. 6: H2020

   back from the EARMA Conference in Vienna.
7. Meanwhile, in Moscow Airport (July). Another bit of silliness. In the summer all eyes were on Moscow Airport as whistleblower Edward Snowden fled American authorities. I couldn't help but see certain similarities between him and the Times Higher's own Phil Baty...

   

   No. 8: Recycling

8. Recycling your Proposal (May). A write up from last year's Grants Factory. The low success rates of the research funding process means that applicants need to think about what to do if their bid fails. Here's some ideas.
9. Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia (June). Last year we launched the Early Career Researcher Network. These were the notes from a really useful session, at which many shared their experiences, and learnt from each other.

   

   No. 9: Balancing

10. Introduction to Open Access (June). So the list ends as it began: with OA. This was six months after the OA Forum, when we stopped to take breath, gather our thoughts, and try and distill what OA is all about.

Thanks to you all for reading the blog this year. If you have any thoughts or ideas on things that should be covered in 2014, drop me a line.

Notes from 'OA: Understanding the New Environment' Event at Kent

Last week saw an international focus on Open Access (OA), and the University played a part by hosting an event to explore the brave new post-Finch world.

Dr Steven Hill

Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy at HEFCE,  started the ball rolling. He traced current academic publishing practices back to 1665, when the first Secretary of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg, set up Philosophical Transactions. It was the world's first scientific journal, and set the template  for almost half a millennium of academic publishing.

450 years is pretty good going, but the old machinery is beginning to creak. 1.5m articles are published every year, roughly one every 20 minutes. We no longer have the ability to read - or even know about - all of these. OA offers us the tools to access and 'mine' this mountain. If we ignore it then we risk being suffocated in an academic landslide.

Hill went on to describe HEFCE's current consultation on incorporating OA in a post-2014 REF. The ultimate goal, said Hill, was to get 'maximum access to research outputs whilst sustaining the scholarly communication system.' To do so HEFCE believed that outputs submitted to the REF should be OA, but the devil was in the detail: what should be the criteria? What the definitions? What should be excluded? Hill outlined HEFCE's current thinking, and the issues it was grappling with.

Prof Rosemary Hunter

Prof Rosemary Hunter (KLS, Kent) took to the podium next with an inspiring tale of how she and her editorial team had used an online OA journal to overcome some of the problems inherent in traditional academic publishing. These included a lack of control over style, format and production, little or no remuneration, and the resulting journal being inaccessible to most of the world.

They decided, in 2006, to grasp the nettle and founded feminists@law to publish research on feminist legal studies. The cost of doing so was low: they were already providing their labour 'free' to the publisher, and the Open Journals System (OJS) was relatively low cost. Information Services provided some seedcorn funding for the initial venture, and the online journal has not looked back since. Feminists@law retains a robust peer review system, but is now accessed from a huge range of countries across the globe, allowing a wide diversity of voices to join the debate, to inform, to challenge and to discuss.

What surprised Hunter, when the Finch Report was published, was the apparent lack of attention given to this type of publishing, despite the potential benefits it offered. The debate was all about green versus gold, and there was little room for alternatives.

This issue came up time and again throughout the afternoon, with a number of speakers expressing their exasperation with  this polarity. Not only should the OA debate not be seen as just Green/Gold, but the assumption should not be made that Gold means expense: over two thirds of Gold OA journals are free.

Hunter finished by highlighting how light and flexible this new form of publishing was. It was light in terms of expense (a single Article Processing Charge (APC) could pay for the cost of a whole journal, using online OA), and flexible in terms of the type of media that could be accepted (it no longer had to be solely text-based); but it was not lightweight in terms of academic rigour or seriousness.

Hunter was followed by Dr Mari Williams, Deputy Director of the BBSRC and a member of the RCUK Research Outputs Network. She was inspired by Hunter's talk, and I got the sense that she had been at times frustrated by the pace of change elsewhere in the sector. RCUK had been having 'robust discussions' with publishers. Perhaps inevitably some were seen to be dragging their feet over OA, or rather were making the most of being able to generate income from both charging subscriptions and APCs, whilst also relying on 'free' academic labour.

Nevertheless, change was in the air, and RCUK had made considerable progress on the back of Finch since the policy had come into force in April. The landscape was moving quickly, she admitted, but 'not always in the direction we would have hoped for.' RCUK were hoping for 100% OA compliance by 2018, with 75% of that being Gold.

You could almost hear the sharp intake of breath across the audience. Here's hoping.

Dr Caroline Edwards

After a brief break Dr Caroline Edwards took to the stage. Edwards is a lecturer at Birkbeck, and co-founder of the Open Library of Humanities (OLH). This project aimed to build a 'mega journal' for the humanities, in the style of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), as well as piloting a scheme for OA monographs. She put up a slide that showed the huge rise in the cost of serial publishing compared to inflation: it looked out of kilter and unsustainable.

Those involved in OLH had taken heart from the 'hacker' culture in the sciences since the 1960s, the idea of 'gifting' knowledge for the advancement of the sector, and peers sharing and commenting on each others work.  Edwards had also set up Alluvium, a journal that allowed for the sharing of articles prior to publication, along the lines of arXiv, developed by physicists Paul Ginsparg as a way of getting feedback quickly from peers on 'pre-print' articles.

Kevin Ashley

At first Edwards' successor at the podium, Kevin Ashley, appeared to have the toughest call of the day: explaining and making the case for research data management. But he was an engaging speaker, and made a very convincing case: open sharing of data prevents both deliberate and accidental mistakes by allowing experiments to be reproduced, or sources to be investigated.

 However, this is not without its challenges: many researchers and academics are reluctant to release what they had spent years collecting. Moreover, even if they are willing (or forced) to share, how can all this data be archived and curated? The Digital Curation Centre, of which Ashley is the Director, is helping with this, but the task is not to be underestimated.

After the aspirational and inspirational, Dr Michael Jubb, Excecutive Director of the Research Information Network, gave some perspective on actual progress towards OA. After 20 years of OA, why have we not got further? Whilst a passionate believer in the cause, he recognised many of the issues which needed to be addressed. Many - on both sides - had very entrenched views, and there needed to be more compromise along the road. Perhaps more importantly, the UK is a minor but important player in the research world: 94% of articles have no UK investigator. The UK cannot implement OA alone.

The second Finch Report was due to be published imminently, and would assess developments since July 2012. Certain of these had the potential to completely change the landscape. For instance, some publishers were giving public libraries 'walk in' access to all of their titles. This could have the effect of giving public libraries access to a better range of cutting edge research than those of universities. What was really needed was coordination: funders, researchers, universities, publishers and learned societies needed to work together if the vision was to have any chance of being realised.

The University's VC, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, drew the event to a close by pulling together the strands that had been explored throughout the day. Issues of Gold or Green (or Hunter's 'inbetween'), of coordination, of 'double dipping' by publishers: much needed to be resolved, but OA had the potential to change how research was accessed and knowledge advanced. After 450 years, it's about time.

OA: Finch Hits Back

Following this week's report from the Select Committee on Open Access, Dame Janet Finch has hit back.

The MPs had questioned her preference for Gold OA, saying that, 'at a time when the budgets of universities are under great pressure, it is unacceptable that the government has issued an open-access policy that will require considerable subsidy from research budgets in order to both maintain journal subscriptions and cover article processing charges.'

Finch's response was clear: 'That's exactly what I said.'

Open Access: Understanding the New Environment - Free Event, 23 October

As part of international Open Access Week, the University is inviting some key players in the sector to discuss the current state of play. In the sixteen months since Dame Janet Finch published her report on Open Access (OA), policy has moved on quickly: the Government accepted the findings of the Report, and the Research Councils (RCUK) have mandated OA publishing. This event will be a good opportunity to take stock. The programme includes speakers from HEFCE, RCUK, the Open Library for Humanities and the Research Information Network, as well as editors of OA journals.

Grands Projets: J'accuse

A previously funded large project.

The Times Higher last month published an article by Prof Bill Amos of Cambridge, who questioned the wisdom of funders moving increasingly to backing big projects, 'taking ever-larger bites from a modest and diminishing funding pot.' By doing so, Amos concluded, the funder 'starves the wider scientific community. Consequently, the next generation of scientists is already leaving, and many undergraduates I have spoken to feel that their chances of getting one of the handful of studentships on offer these days are too low to be worth the effort.'

Amos articulated what many of us have been feeling for some time. In recent years there has been an inexorable move by the Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust to concentrate funding on longer, larger grants. The logic is impeccable:  in order to answer the big questions that will make a big difference to society, we need big teams of big hitters doing big science. Or big social science. Or big humanities. Moreover, big projects don't require proportionately more administration, and by cutting back on all those pesky small grants, funders will be saving a lot of time and money in selecting and monitoring the things.

What has particularly rankled in this is a sense that the funders are shooting themselves in the foot. I always believed that the funders got many, many more bangs for their bucks by funding small grants. Principal investigators tended to makes sure that every pound, every penny counted. Better still, these small grants offered early career researchers a first step on the ladder of research funding. Sure, some funders do offer dedicated routes for ECRs, but they still tend to be be substantial, and the success rate as a result is negligible. Small grants with a high success rate allowed funders to light the blue touch paper and watch as the subsequent careers fizzed and whirred, glittering in a thousand different directions. To many, this initial light has been extinguished.

However, up until now this view was, for me, nothing more than a hunch. This changed last week when I stumbled across 'Big Science vs Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding' via Twitter (thank you, Open Access).  Its authors, Fortin and Currie, looked at whether it was 'more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers.'

Focusing on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the National Science Foundation of America, Fortin and Currie start by asking what the goal of the funder is. Is it to maximise major discoveries (sometimes criticised as 'photo opportunity science'), or to maximise the 'summed impact' of the community. The authors looked at four measures of 'impact': total number of papers published, number of citations, number of citations for the most highly cited paper, and the number of very highly cited papers.

Interestingly, they found either no correlation or even an inverse correlation between size of grant and impact:  'impact is a decelerating function of grant size'. They continue: 'our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that concentrating research funds on 'elite' researchers in the name of 'excellence' increases total impact of the scientific community. Quite the opposite: impact per dollar remains constant or decreases with grant size. Highly cited studies are no more likely to result from large grants than from spreading the same funds among multiple researchers.'

Furthermore, 'if maximising the total impact of the entire pool of grantees is the goal, then the 'few big' strategy would be less effective than the 'many small' strategy...funding more scientists increases the diversity of fields of research, and the range of opportunities available to students.'

The time has come to reconsider this passion for large 'ribbon cutting' projects. Whilst funding many small projects might mean that you can't blow your trumpet about unpicking the human genome, it will have a huge effect on a wide, diverse range of research and careers, which might actually have a more positive effect on the health of your discipline - and consequently your profile as a funder - in the long run. Funders, think again.

An Introduction to Open Access

This week sees the introduction of the University's Open Access Policy. For those who are new to OA, I thought it would be useful to post a brief introduction to it.

Broad definition

Open Access (OA) is the practice of allowing academic outputs to be available to all, free of charge. Generally this applies to journal articles, but some effort is being made to apply OA to monographs and other outputs.

OA takes two forms:

• 'Green': in which an article is archived in a freely accessible online repository (such as KAR);
• 'Gold:' in which an article is made freely available through a journal without subscription. Some publishers levy an 'article processing charge' (APC) for allowing an article to be made available OA.

History

Although OA can be traced back to the 1940s, the modern movement began in the 1990s, and emerged first in the sciences. The earliest free online archive was arXiv, established in 1991. PubMed, an online repository for medical research, was created in 1997, and the ePrints software was developed in 2000. 

The movement gained momentum in the early 21st Century. 34,000 scholars signed a 2001 open letter to publishers calling for open access, and pledging not to publish in non-OA journals. The Budapest Open Access Initiative pinned down the definition of OA in 2002, and this was followed in 2003 by the Berlin Declaration. An increasing number of OA journals and repositories were established subsequently.

The Wellcome Trust mandated OA in 2006; the European Commission (EC) launched an OA pilot project in 2008, and has made it mandatory for Horizon 2020.

In 2011 the UK Government set up the Finch Group to look at open access. It reported in 2012, and all of its recommendations were accepted by the Government.

UK Research Councils

As a result, the UK Research Councils (RCUK) OA Policy states that, from 1 April 2013:

• RCUK-funded research published in peer review journals should be made OA;
• Both Gold and Green OA is supported, but Gold is preferred;
• If Green is chosen, investigators have 6 months (for STEM subjects) and 12 months (for Humanities and Social Science subjects) to deposit their articles in a repository. There is some flexibility with this during the 'transition period' (until 2018);
• Articles should be made available under a CC BY licence;
• Underlying data should also, where possible, be made freely available.

Investigators can check whether their chosen journal complies with these demands on the SHERPA/RoMEO website.

RCUK expects institutions to make a minimum of 45% of the papers arising from RCUK projects OA in 2013/14, rising to 53% in 2014/15. 

Debate

OA is not without its controversy. Concerns include: 

• It may be expensive, and publishers may 'double dip' - i.e. charge readers by subscription, and contributors through the APC;
• Funders are spending money on OA rather than the research itself. However, the Wellcome Trust estimates that the cost of OA is no more than 1-2% of its budget;
• The funders' OA mandate may limit individual academic freedom to publish wherever they choose;
• It may exclude those who can't afford APCs from the more high profile 'Gold' OA;
• It may threaten the future of learned societies, which rely for their existence on income raised from their journals;
• Authors may lose control of their work through the CC BY licence.

However, these concerns are countered by those who perceive the advantages:

• It removes the 'power to publish' from a small number of large publishers;
• It allows for the wider dissemination of knowledge beyond academia;
• This, in turn, allows research to be used commercially more quickly;
• It may raise the profile of a wider range of authors, and increase citation rates for articles.

More information

Peter Suber provides a useful and comprehensive view of open access. The Guardian has an open access section of its Higher Education Network that provides update on its development. Elsewhere there are a wide range of voices and opinions on OA produced by governments, funders, learned societies, universities and individuals. Search any of their websites for specific policies or standpoints, or contact me directly for more information.

Open Access and Jisc APC

Whilst the rest of the sector tear chunks out of each other over Open Access, something more constructive is happening over on the Jisc farm. As I’m sure you know, Jisc is a registered charity that works on behalf of UK HE and FE to champion the use of digital technologies.

'Hey! Sir! You like? I give you good APC price'

When Finch prescribed a strict course of Gold OA, Jisc recognised the potential for a 24 carat headache. they foresaw crowds of naifs, like daytrippers at a Moroccan souk, each haggling separate deals with stall owners. What was needed was some unified system to handle article processing charges (APCs), which would simplify the payment system, but also allow - so they hoped - for some bulk negotiating leverage. Moreover, it could help institutions to better manage their RCUK block grant.

Having recognised the need for such a system, they had a look around at what was already available, and identified a small start up company that seemed to have just what they needed: Open Access Key (OAK). Linking up with them made sense for both parties: Jisc got a ready made system that seemed to be fit for purpose; OAK got the backing of a known and trusted body, a government-funded supplier that had had experience of rolling out similar such projects.

On Friday I went up to that London to have a look at the system - branded as ‘Jisc APC’ -  in practice. I was impressed. It seemed to work, and seemed to provide a smooth, effortless integration between the needs of the publisher (i.e. to be paid), the academic (i.e. to have their work published) and the institution (i.e. to manage the money and approve the payment).

The bulk of the audience, however, was made up of more seasoned information service types than me, and there was much close questioning of the practical detail. Many of the questions revolved around money, inevitably: how will fees be split between different institutions? How often will requests for payments be sent? Will administrators have control over the system? Will they approve the payment, or is this automated?

To their credit, both Jisc and OAK fielded the questions openly, and were honest about the state of development. The major fly in the ointment is the buy in from publishers. Whilst Jisc have been talking to all the major players, none has yet committed to it. Nevertheless, Jisc believed that, initially, one or two would soon be on board, and that would start a snowball. Whilst there might be some benefit in them dividing and conquering the sector, the certainty, simplicity and administrative clarity offered by Jisc APC was very tempting.

Jisc are currently working with 52 pilot institutions who have expressed an interest to trial the system. Hopefully it will be positive, and one more hurdle to OA will be overcome.  

A Splat of Pure Green

Whilst the UK academic community has been in convulsions recently over Open Access, desperately trying to work out how best to handle Green and Gold, Lord Percy was there four hundred years before.

There's plenty to learn here, so sit back and enjoy the many levels of meaning as Percy creates a splat of pure Green.

Thanks to a certain source for drawing this to my attention. You know who you are, but I'm not sure you want to be linked to such frivolous nonsense...

Notes from Open Access Forum, University of Kent

Introduction

Open Mic: the panel take questions after the talks

Over fifty members of staff gathered in the Senate Chamber on 15 January to discuss issues around the Government’s Open Access (OA) policy. This had been developed following the publication of Dame JanetFinch’s report in June, which recommended that

‘a clear policy direction should be set towards support for publication in open access or hybrid journals...as the main vehicle for the publication of research, especially when it is publicly funded’.

The Vice Chancellor, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, opened the Forum by making clear that ‘the direction of travel has been set for us, it is for us to discuss the best way to respond.’ She pointed out that the block funding from RCUK, some £59k for Kent, did not cover the majority of either funded or self-funded research that was currently undertaken, and that some thought needed to be given as to how the OA costs for this would be met.

Ultimately the only possible source for these would be QR. She emphasised that other institutions, both large and small, were having to make similar decisions.

Before handing over to the other speakers, she outlined for clarity the OA terms ‘gold’ and ‘green’:

• GOLD open access is publication, normally in a standard journal that allows free access to any articles for which an ‘article processing charge’ (APC) has been paid. The RCUK block grant is intended to offset these APCs.
• GREEN open access is self-archiving of articles that have appeared elsewhere. This may be in institutional repositories such as theKent Academic Repository (KAR), or subject-specific ones such as PubMed. The Research Councils have stated that archiving must happen within 6 months (or 12 months for AHRC and ESRC).

Speakers

Prof Dick Jones (School of Computing, and Faculty Director of Research for the Sciences), stated that ‘in principle’ many in the Sciences were supportive of OA, and that many already did publish via OA journals or self-archive. However, he had a number of concerns, including:

• The cost of imposing OA universally. If even half the articles currently published by the Faculty were made available via gold OA, the cost would be between £250k-£750k;
• Having to pay twice, for both APCs and for subscriptions to the journals. This raised a further question of the iniquity of the current publishing model, which relied on academics writing for, editing, reviewing, reading and then paying for the journals.
• How will APC funding be rationed? Will it be centrally? On what basis will it be provided – first come first served, or the merit of the work, or the impact factor of the journal?
• The effect on learned societies. These relied on income from subscriptions, and, in turn, supported and developed their community. If their income source was to be removed they faced an uncertain future. Dr Ruth Blakeley (below) concurred with this, suggesting that the loss of learned societies would be more than ‘collateral damage’, as they provide support for both the sector and HEFCE consultations. 

Dr Ruth Blakeley (School of Politics & International Relations) stated that the Academy of Social Sciences was intending to lobby the House of Lords to stop the policy. Their concerns were:

• One size does not fit all. There was a sense that OA had been developed to suit the publication culture of STEM subjects, and was not suited to the social science and humanities disciplines, which made more use of monographs and ‘slow burn’ articles.
• It would exacerbate the funding divide. STEM subjects would require more funding for OA, and the policy would therefore exacerbate the already considerable difference in funding between the sciences and social sciences/humanities.
• Intellectual property. The current policy suggested that publications should be covered by the most permissive ‘creative commons’ licence, CC-BY. This license would let others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon academic work, even commercially, as long as they credit the author for the original creation. Some perceive a danger in this: for instance, your work may be ‘hijacked’ by causes of which you disapprove. You would have no control over your work. Instead, the sector should push for the more restrictive CC-BY-NC-ND.
• OA & American journals. Many of the top journals are based in the USA, which hasn’t mandated OA. As such, UK researchers with RCUK funding may be prevented from submitting to them. This may have an adverse effect on their career and profile.
• OA & the REF. There has been the suggestion that publications submitted for consideration to the next REF may have to be OA. If so, there are implications about funding, timescales and, once again, whether academics are able to submit to the top journals.

Dr James Baker (School of History) had a more positive view of OA. He had worked on KAR, as well as working as an academic in History, and had thus seen the subject from two perspectives. He regarded the move towards OA as ‘a good thing’, as the current model for academic publication was unsustainable: even Harvard library was saying it could no longer afford subscription fees.

• Misunderstanding. The response from the History discipline suggested that there was some confusion and misunderstanding in the community. An open letter from 21 leading historical journals had suggested that OA sanctioned plagiarism, which was untrue. In addition, there was a level of hypocrisy in the claim that OA would ‘require authors to sign away their rights’, as they already had to do so through traditional publication.
• Monographs. Interestingly, there was little provision for monographs in the Finch Report, although this was the main avenue for publication in the humanities. Jisc and the AHRC had funded the OAPEN-UK project, to gauge whether allowing online access to monograph texts had had an effect on book sales. The results thus far suggested it hadn’t.

 Trudy Turner (Information Services) discussed some of the issues that IS, in support of the academic community, was facing in implementing OA. KAR would be at the forefront of this, and there had been considerable investment in making it fit for this purpose. KAR had 24,000 publication records, of which half included full text. This was a good proportion, but it was unclear how many publications had not been recorded at all. Nationally all institutions were having to ‘navigate the landscape’, and all were considering what the best model for funding publications should be.

Dr Simon Kerridge (Research Services) outlined some of the pros and cons of OA, before presenting a ‘straw man’ OA policy for discussion. The University did not want to restrict publication or academic freedom; however, there was a need to consider how best to distribute limited funding for OA. If it did not support OA there was the danger of facing RCUK sanctions. Moreover, OA offered potential benefits, such as an increase in citation rates. The straw man policy suggested that the University should encourage/mandate green OA through KAR.

Prof Diane Houston (Graduate School) highlighted the potential impact of undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) publications. All PGs publish, and many UGs do too; should the University accept responsibility for paying for them to do so through OA? If the University did pay, there should be different criteria for publication from those applied to staff, and there was a need for a level playing field between disciplines.

Discussion

The Vice Chancellor asked for an indication of support for OA generally, and for green OA specifically. The majority of the audience appeared to accept it.

However, a number of questions were raised following the speeches, and issues covered included:

• How would international collaborations or multiple authored publications be handled?
• How seriously would universities implement or monitor OA policies?
• Who is the perceived audience who do not already have access to academic publications?
• How would funding to facilitate OA be agreed and distributed?
• Should the sector collectively oppose the Government’s policy on OA?

Conclusion

It was agreed that a representative working group be convened to further develop and consult on the ‘straw man’ OA policy. 

But that's the Way It's Always Been

Yesterday I organised an Open Access Forum at the University. It was well attended, and a great opportunity to voice concerns, to debate the issues, and to begin to formulate a policy to deal with this changing landscape. I will post some proper notes from this event shortly.

In the evening I was following this up by reading around the subject online, reading the responses and position statements, the blog posts and comments. At the same time I was reading about HMV going into administration, and it struck me that both these events - the implementation of OA and the death of these retail giants - were not a million miles apart. Perhaps it was the tone of the comments about both that did it: that elegiac paean for a past that was - to be frank - not that great. 

The current framework for academic publishing relies massively on the goodwill of academics to write, review, edit - free of charge- and then pay through the nose to read them. Not only that, but they demand that academics sign away any kind of rights to the distribution or use of their work. They hide away and paywall their knowledge. Similarly, the old behemoths of the High Street provided poor service, lack of knowledge, and overpriced goods. Both of them relied on the fact that 'that was the way it has always been'. 

New technology has opened up the market, and both retail and academic publishing faces a new and uncertain future. Sure, it's scary, but it's also exciting. In place of the bland and depressing chain stores might come more responsive, interesting outlets that provide customers with what they actually want. In place of the traditional model of academic publishing might come one that genuinely responds to the needs and desires of the sector.

I don't want to be unrealistic about the dangers ahead. I am aware and worried about the future of learned societies, for instance, or how we can make the new funding model work. I'm worried about the potential inequalities, about the funding divide, about protecting intellectual property. But at the same time I think there's real potential here for something new, something better, to fit this new century, that can complement and suit the age of the iPad and the connected researcher, that will make knowledge - and the distribution of knowledge - truly open. 

Open Access: a Field Guide

Many of you may have been confused by the murmuration that surrounded the release of the Finch Report in July. Fear not: as part of its public service remit Fundermentals brings you a field guide for bewildered academic twitchers.

Goldfinch
Top of the Finch family is the Goldfinch. The Goldfinch swoops and soars on (peer-reviewed) thermals, it's golden plumage shimmering in the autumn sunshine, free for all to treasure and enjoy. But those golden feathers are expensive to maintain, and whilst bird watchers and publishers love it, academic landowners are concerned about how they can afford to allow this bird to fly free.

Greenfinch
More dowdy than its golden cousin, the Greenfinch is more of a ground dweller. It hops around fields and hedgerows, opportunistically seeking out a place to store its cargo of nuts and berries. Unfortunately this winter harvest often goes unnoticed, as most twitchers have their binoculars focussed on the brasher, flashier Goldfinch.

As well as these two beautiful birds, the Finch family also includes the Chaffinch and Bullfinch. The debate surrounding Open Access has allowed Chaff and Bull to prosper, to such a degree that there's a danger that they might overwhelm the other species. We at Fundermental Towers keep our binoculars trained nervously on the sky.

Thanks to Simon Kerridge for highlighting this ornithological display.

Who's Who

Who: Then

Who: Now

I was very pleased to see that the STFC has in place a former Dr Who as Director of IT and International Strategy. I believe that this is very forward thinking of the Council. After all, you don't get much more international than Gallifrey, and there's not a lot that Dr Who doesn't know about IT.

I hope this is the first of many such appointments. I look forward to Jude the Apostle being appointed to oversee the Shared Services Centre, and Richard Nixon taking over RCUK's 'Open Access' remit.

Open Access 'Snowball' Continues to Roll

Two interesting news items dropped into my inbox today.

1: The Times Higher reported that the European Commission will back open access publishing in Horizon 2020. Details of the proposal will be published at an event in Brussels on 20 June. The Director General for Research and Innovation, Robert-Jan Smits, was quoted as saying that it could make 'one hell of a difference.'

2: The Guardian reported that Winston Hide, associate editor of the Elsevier journal Genomics, has resigned from the editorial board. 'No longer can I work for a system that provides solid profits for the publisher while effectively denying colleagues in developing countries access to research findings,' he said.

It's an interesting coincidence, and suggests that (to quote Prof Tim Gowers in the THE article) 'the snowball is getting bigger'. However, some (ok, I mean the publishers of paid-for journals) question the desirability of open access. Income from subscriptions, they argue, allows them to spend more on selecting papers, editing and production.

I think this is a fair point, and worth bearing in mind. If funding does not come through subscriptions, they will need to be reimbursed for these costs from other sources. These could well be the funders of the original research, which would, in turn, mean that there is less money available to fund other research.

I'll continue to watch this snowball's progress with interest.

EPSRC Makes Open Access Mandatory

EPSRC has announced that it intends to make open access mandatory. It will apply to all research articles submitted for publication on or after 1st September 2011. In a statement on 3 June EPSRC stated that the Policy on Access to Research Outputs had been 'agreed by our Council and which we are introducing with immediate effect. The policy states that all EPSRC-funded research publications must be published as openly accessible documents – that is, freely available online to anyone who has access to the internet.'